WB response was to make very superficial changes, most of the recommendations were not incorporate

It did increase the introductory part of the report to clarify the purpose

But once the report has been out for a while, so a sentence here and there in the introduction won’t change the perception

Continue our fight against the report, other countries have joined

Kim came in 2013 in the midst of CSO and other opposition, huge storm at the Board – agreement to form independent panel to look at the report, chaired by Trevor Manuel

TOR were ample, including methodology, ranking, overall impact, way forward

After then came back to the board, question on how to take forward

When it was about to be released a big media campaign in favour of the ranking

We thought if the recommendations would not be implemented, this would be a reputational risk

They implemented a few of the less important recommendations of the report

Moved from IFC to WB, but they are still located in the same place – not physically moved, argument that the reforms in the WB need to finish first

But this is an important part of the changes

Our position after the two reviews and work on this for almost 7 years – continue to criticise the report, including poor quality control of data, misleading public perception

WB sends survey to the country, mostly responded by lawyers, after compilation, they send it to the ED office for agreement – in our case in the last year, even if you don’t make any changes, it is unlikely anything else will be changed

We made lots of comments, they were all recognised

Issue of sample size, no proof this has changed, just adding another city without addressing other things will not address the problems

Indicators, adding x number of employees won’t address problems either

Sharan Burrow

One of the best overviews I’ve heard of reasons why this is pure nonsense

Doing business in a place where workers are oppressed etc, where it is a crime against humanity to do business, this report promotes

Workers indicators is still in use

Hard to believe a minimum wage etc is a threat against doing business

Heard they want to reintegrate negative aspects

Report is not just a business agenda, it does drive governments and give them an agenda

They will win again if we are not vocal

ITUC has been a strong opponent of Doing Business

Harmed governments possibility of properly regulate

At one stage we supported WDR on jobs – says labour market protection doesn’t have a distorting effect on growth, but then there is the Doing Business in the same institution

We support all recommendations of Trevor Manuel report

Distorting of reality and drive by certain aspects of the institution

Want elimination of tax indicator, workers indicator

We need to call for Doing Business to be buried, funded by public money, can’t argue such an agenda

If Kim is serious about climate and environment, will he choose the business of people

ITUC fighting back, next month we will release our own index on where not to work – groups countries in 1-5

We rate Qatar at 5, with slave like labour, that’s what Doing Business indicates as a good environment

Carlos Benavente

Latin American perspective, measures business climate globally according to the ease of doing business

We think the report has lost legitimacy – ratings assigned to a country based on the degree of disclosure and foreign investor

Failed to respond to criticism

The panel recommendation on transparency has not been implemented

The role of the private sector is important, but what is the appropriate way of promoting investment

Investment with no contribution to national development, extractive and speculative character

Should take into account broader debate on development, not just economic growth

One size fits all, should also take into account specific context and circumstance to be a useful tool

Has to be adapted to the change we are observing in the wake of the global crisis

The indicators should be consistent with eradicating poverty and for equality

Greater economic openness and practicality

Some indicators should disappear, such as labour flexibility and right to work

People based focus and not only on profit

The independent panel report is a first step, support implementation of the recommendations

not just the employing workers, which we call the ease of fire, but also how the WB is establishing itself as a knowledge base

problematic that a product, not being peer reviewed, and is used to develop a number of other products

independent panel critique of not being rigorous

CSO being critical on various areas

If you are using a model firm, you are not looking at the needs of communities

Inconsistency of the rankings

Report should start with ‘content will do harm’ or something similar

We now have the answers of what is weak with this

We would like to see more development oriented outcomes

Problematic that the report has been incorporated in various other tools, without having been designed to do so

Q: Unilever statement, if you do business without addressing human rights, etc, you don’t have a future – do we need to explore this kind of view from corporates, if genuine.

Q: West African Society of Business Ethics, would like to use to capture experiences in the region, to help improve ethical business practices. Would like to speak off line with WB about this.

Burrow

Ruggie principles do argue for due diligence as fundamental

Don’t think serious in his own beliefs, but shocked what goes on the ground

We have to split the business communities – give them a choice

But we need to have people behind us, be able to expose them

Eg Wal-Mart in US supporting charity for its own workers

Businesses have lost their moral compass

Good initiative on West Africa

Speer

Bangladesh tragedy, if we move towards better rights for labour, how would they do the Doing Business report

Kvakkenbos

Example outlines disconnect from reality

If we created a country based on the indicators, not a country where you would want to live

Not useful as it is, in particular if it continues not to work, waste of resources

Q: Committed to combat world poverty, other aspect to prevent people from falling into extreme poverty – this is where DB comes from. Promote human rights is very important. This is our concern.

Q: IMF using DB, more details?

Peter Bakvis

policy advise in reports referencing DB

Q: On methodology, we used an index to get press coverage, little meaning. IEG report with recommendations, either management accepted or not, shouldn’t they then implement them?

Q: Was on the original group evaluating, spent a couple of years going over it and making recommendations. Were told to fix it, we told them it’s not fixable, in particular on labour. WB is still talking about how to fix the indicators, what can we do – should instead focus on good governance.

Caliari

it doesn’t go away, it doesn’t get fixed – NGOs that were in favour of the report they might be usefulness in having an index

but when it is by a multilateral creates a problem, public interest agenda

Kvakkenbos

represent CSOs with dispersed views

personally think should be burned

CSOs saying if we are to keep the report, then we will try and make it a different report

Or don’t do it under WB

Very little academic rigour, evidence to back it up

Benavente

our main concern is about the people

on tax policy, has been started by LA network on tax justice

erosion of tax space due to big firms

in Central America these companies put pressure to our governments

Burrow

could you strip down report to what is useful

DB used as rationale not to raise minimum wage in Moldova, it is being used

If Manuel report not being taken seriously, civil society should say enough is enough

Speer

DB is supposed to be about national SMEs, but it’s not what the product is about

On accountability and methodology, it is a PR issue

Today we have 10 indicators, some not relevant at all to the WB mission on poverty eradication

On accountability in most recent discussion, China, France very vocal against report – with IEG and panel report, why are we still doing it

Manuel report does recommend change in title

Not sure if it is just good governance

Wouldn’t be the first time WB has created an index and then passed on to an institution more suitable

Q: Would be good to do analysis from the angle of inequality.

Q: Tax indicator

Kvakkenbos

Hopefully in the autumn we will know what the impediments to implementing the plan are

Q: Doing Business in Agriculture, Benchmarking Business in Agriculture, any thoughts on this?

Kvakkenbos

BBA non transparent process, process has changed over time

Now about annual report, deep dive, but unclear

Soren Ambrose, ActionAid

Unclear about ranking, ambivalent messages

Speer

if we don’t have support from CSOs, there are other shareholders who oppose our voice

The Bretton Woods Project is a UK-based NGO that challenges the World Bank and IMF and promotes alternative approaches. We serve as an information provider, watchdog, networker and advocate. Our flagship publications are the Bretton Woods Observer, a quarterly critical review of developments at the World Bank and IMF, the Dispatch, a biannual analysis of the World Bank and IMF Spring and Annual Meetings, and the NewsLens, a bi-weekly roundup of key news and critical viewpoints published about the World Bank and IMF.